i-law.com

CHATBURN v. MANCHESTER DRY DOCK COMPANY, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 1

Negligence-Breach of statutory duty- Alternative common law claim- "Factory"-"Precincts"-Personal injures sustained by apprentice fitter's mate (aninfant) employed by defendants (ship-repairers) - Apprentice engaged in dismantling water supply pipes on board trawler - Pipes corroded - Necessity to split nuts with cold chisel -Damage to eye by splinter-Action brought by next friend-Defendants' premises (which included fitting shops and offices and dry dock) bounded on one side by Manchester Ship Canal- Trawler lying afloat at defendants' jetty on canal-Whether trawler within "precincts" of "factory" within meaning of Factories Act, 1937-Regulations made under Act requiring supply of goggles (admittedly not supplied). 151. The expression "factory" also includes the following premises in which persons are employed in manual labour, that is to say:- (i) any yard or dry dock (including the precincts thereof) in which ships or vessels are constructed, reconstructed, repaired, refitted, finished or broken up . . .

Factories Act, 1937, Sects. 49, 151 - Protection of Eyes Regulations, 1938.

Workmen's compensation - Alternative remedy-Failure of common law claim -Costs-Action brought on behalf of infant plaintiff by next friend-Next friend nominally responsible for costs -Right of Court to deduct costs from compensation award.

THE "CARRICK COAST."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 7

Negligent navigation-"Putting by"- Look-out-Plaintiffs' paddle steamship Embassy inward bound into Poole Harbour-Port helm action taken to enter channel, signals being sounded- -Defendants' motor vessel Carrick Coast outward bound down channel- Helm of Embassy eased on becoming aware of Carrick Coast, ships passing in safety, but Embassy being carried over towards quay where paddle steamship Bournemouth Queen was moored -Collision between Embassy and Bournemouth Queen in spite of helm and engine action taken by Embassy- Whether collision due to negligence of Carrick Coast in navigating on wrong side of channel, thus putting the Embassy by-Alleged bad look-out on board Carrick Coast and failure to ease her speed.

HOSKING v. DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT COMPANY, LTD., AND GEE, WALKER & SLATER, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 11

Factory-Safe means of access-"Gangway" - Faulty plank provided by independent contractors-Liability of occupier-Indemnity-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in employ of first defendants-Second defendants under contract with first defendants to carry out certain building work on premises belonging to first defendants-Trench dug by second defendants in course of such work-Plank, supplied by second defendants, placed across trench for purpose of crossing - Collapse of plank when being crossed by plaintiff - Action brought by plaintiff alleging breach of statutory duty of first defendants and common law negligence of both defendant-Third-party proceedings instituted by first defendants against second defendants - Right of first defendants to indemnity under contract-Factories Act, 1937, Sects. 25, 26, 107 - Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, Sect. 6. Contract - Indemnity - Accident to employee - Employers in breach of Factories Act, 1937-Contractors carrying out work on employers' premises- Negligence of contractors-Indemnity clause providing: The contractor shall be solely liable for and shall indemnify the employer in respect of and shall insure against any liability, loss, claim or proceedings whatsoever arising under any statute (other than the Workmen's Compensation and Employers' Liability Acts) or at common law in respect of personal injury to or the death of any person whomsoever arising out of or in the course of or caused by the execution of the works, unless due to any act or neglect of the employer or of any person for whom the employer is responsible.

LINDSTEDT v. WIMBORNE STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD., AND ANOTHER.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 19

Negligence - Damages - Assessment - Personal injuries sustained by ship's carpenter (aged 52) necessitating amputation of leg - Defendant employers admittedly liable-Matters to be taken into account in assessing damages - Award of £2150 general damages and £900 special damages.

GEORGE COHEN, SONS & CO., LTD. v. DOCKS AND INLAND WATERWAYS EXECUTIVE.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 22

Landlord and tenant-Lease-Rectification - Specific performance - Breach of covenant-Lease entered into in 1924 between plaintiffs (or their predecessors in title) and defendants (or their predecessors in title) whereby defendants' quay, etc., was demised to plaintiffs for term of 21 years-Covenant by plaintiff lessees that they

shall and will at all times during the continuance of this demise as often as occasion shall require at their own expense well and sufficiently repair maintain uphold support paint cleanse and amend and keep the said premises and all erections buildings and fences which now are or shall hereafter be erected built or set up upon the same.

Covenant by defendant lessors

that they will within a reasonable time after the execution of these presents but in any event before the 24th June, 1924, repair and make good all the quay walls bounding the premises hereby demised and will during the term hereby created keep such quay walls in a fit and proper state.

Negotiations in 1943 as to renewal of lease (with additional premises)- Arrangement between parties that new lease should be prepared by defendants' solicitor - Discussion as to terms - "Terms and conditions contained in the present lease to be embodied in the new lease where applicable"-Draft lease submitted to, and approved by, plaintiffs-Covenant by plaintiffs in new lease

at all times during the said term well and substantially to repair cleanse amend paint and maintain and keep in a good and substantial state of repair and condition the demised premises and all erections buildings cranes machinery equipment fixtures and premises as shall at any time during the continuance of the said term be in or upon the demised premises . . . and all waterway and other walls fences drains and gates and all other the demised premises with the appurtenances thereof.

Plaintiffs unaware that lessors' repair covenant (as contained in lease of 1924) was omitted from new lease-Collapse of quay wall in 1945-Liability for repair-Damages-Action brought by plaintiffs claiming declaration that new lease was not binding on them and should be set aside; specific performance of agreement evidenced by correspondence during negotiations; rectification of new lease by insertion of a repair covenant by lessors (in terms similar to those contained in lease of 1924) and by deletion of certain of lessees' obligations to repair-Plaintiffs' right to relief-Onus of proof- Evidence of matters leading up to preparation of new lease-Intentions of parties-Terms where "applicable"- Meaning.

THOMSON AND OTHERS v. DUGGIE. THE "NARINIA."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 44

Practice-Tort committed by deceased husband -Liability of widow as such- Collision between trawlers Resplendent and Narinia-Resplendent sunk - Proceedings instituted by pursuers, owners of Resplendent, against master of Narinia-Death of master before service of writ could be effected-Writ issued (more than two years after collision) against widow of master- Pursuers unaware of master's personal representative-Pleas by defender (1) that action was out of time; (2) that action was incompetent and irrelevant -Extension of time to sue-Discretion of Court-Maritime Conventions Act, 1911, Sect. 8.

THE "JAAK" AND OTHER ESTONIAN VESSELS.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 45

Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939-Requisition of Estonian vessels by Ministry of Transport-Period of requisition-Loss during requisition-Values-Notice of claim - Whether lodged within prescribed period-Extension of time- Claims brought by Estonian shipping associations, by individual members, by "disponents" thereof, and by holders of powers of attorney executed by "disponents" - Estonian law - Shipping association dissolved upon loss or disposal of vessel-Effect of requisition -Consideration of powers under which M.O.T. acted - Rights of disponents considered - Validity of powers of attorney executed in favour of British subject-Jurisdiction of Court to award share of compensation to individual members - International law-Estonia occupied by U.S.S.R. - Whether shipping associations abolished by Soviet legislation - Compensation (Defence) Act, Sects. 4 (1) (a), (d), (5), (8), (9) (1) (c), 11, 17 (1). (a) Jaak, Aina, and Anna: Requisitioned in October, 1940 - Still under requisition-Claim under Sect. 4 (1) (a) -Notice of claim for compensation under Sect. 4 (1) (a) lodged by Estonian Minister within statutory period (as extended by Treasury)-Acceptance by Court that notice of claim in present proceedings was given within prescribed time. (b) Taara: Requisitioned in October, 1940-Lost by stranding Aug. 6, 1941- Claims under Sect. 4 (1) (a) and Sect. 4 (1) (d)-Notice of claim for compensation under Sect. 4 (1) (a) and under Sect. 4 (1) (d) lodged by Estonian Minister within statutory period (as extended by Treasury)-Acceptance by Court that notice of claim in present proceedings was given within prescribed time. (c) Keila: Requisitioned in October, 1940-Still under requisition-Claim under Sect. 4 (1) (a)-Notice of claim The "Jaak" and other Estonian Vessels. Shipping Claims Trib. 46 for compensation under Sect. 4 (1) (a) lodged by Estonian Minister within statutory period (as extended by Treasury)-Acceptance by Court that notice of claim in present proceedings was given within prescribed time-Disponent untraced-Claim brought by British holder of power of attorney executed in his favour by disponent- Court unable to presume death of disponent -Whether power was in fact revoked by disponent - Validity of power in favour of British subject- Jurisdiction of Court to award share of compensation to individual part-owners (or their heirs). (d) Kaida: Requisitioned in October, 1940 - Stranding in December, 1945 - Abandoned by M.O.T. as constructive total loss in October, 1947-Claims under Sect. 4 (1) (a) and Sect. 4 (1) (d)- Notice of claim for compensation under Sect. 4 (1) (a) lodged by Estonian Minister within statutory period (as extended by Treasury)-Acceptance by Court that notice of claim by part-owners under Sect. 4 (1) (d) was lodged within prescribed time-Like claims on behalf of shipping associations held to be out of time-Disponent untraced- Claim brought by British holder of power of attorney executed in his favour by disponent-Court unable to presume death of disponent-Whether power was in fact revoked by disponent-Validity of power in favour of British subject- Jurisdiction of Court to award share of compensation to individual part-owners (or their heirs).

ABASAND OILS, LIMITED v. BOILER INSPECTION & INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 57

Fire insurance-Explosion followed by fire -Prevention of business caused "solely" by an explosion-Concurrent causes of loss-Exceptions clause- Plaintiffs' oil refinery plant insured with defendant insurance company- Policy covering loss from an accident "as herein defined to an object described herein," defendants agreeing to pay for

loss on the property of the assured directly damaged by such accident . . .

"Accident" defined as including "a sudden and accidental explosion of gas within the furnace of the object"- Indorsement on policy headed "Use and Occupancy (Business)" and providing (inter alia):

A. In consideration of the premium, the company hereby agrees to pay the assured one thousand dollars ($1000), herein called the daily indemnity, for each day of total prevention of business on the premises described as Oil Refinery, and located at Waterways, near McMurray, Alberta, caused solely by an accident (occurring while this indorsement is in effect) to an object, covered by any of the schedules of this policy . . . and to pay the assured a part of the daily indemnity for partial prevention of business on the premises, so caused; all subject to a limit of loss of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for any one accident . . .

Limitation of Liability.

G. The company shall not be liable for payment for any prevention of business resulting from an accident caused by fire or by the use of water or other means to extinguish fire (nor for any prevention of business resulting from fire outside of the object, following an accident). . . .

Explosion in furnace of boiler-Resultant fire causing building to be burnt down-Whether fire due to explosion- Consequences of explosion-Whether prevention of business caused "solely" by explosion-Construction of policy- Appeal by plaintiffs from decision of Supreme Court of Canada, reversing judgment of Appellate Division of Supreme Court of Alberta (affirming Shepherd, J.), which awarded plaintiffs 100,000 dols.

THE "EBOR JEWEL."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 64

Salvage-Engines broken down-Services rendered by motor fishing vessel Marcia to motor fishing vessel Ebor Jewel in North Sea-Engines of Ebor Jewel broken down-Towage approximately 170 miles to Grimsby, occupying about 61 hours-Salvors' loss of fishing-Ebor Jewel equipped with sails-Prospect of making port without assistance-Bad weather-Risk to both vessels-Services very well rendered.

THE "YVONNE RISAGER."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 70

Salvage-Engines broken down-Services rendered by motor fishing vessel Clee to motor fishing vessel Yvonne Risager in North Sea-Engines of Yvonne Risager broken down-Towage of approximately 80 miles to Grimsby, occupying about 18 hours-Short and simple service - Good weather - Other assistance available - Possibility of proceeding part of way under sail- Salvors' loss of fishing-Salved values: £5684-Award: £300.

COOKSEY v. BUTLER'S WHARF, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 73

Negligence-System of working-Safe plant and appliances-Common employment - Contributory negligence - Fatal accident to hatchwayman while engaged in loading of ship-Claim by widow against employers (wharfingers) -Deceased one of gang employed in loading bales of wool into steamship Mallard from barge alongside at defendants' wharf-Hooks attached to bales by others of gang working in barge, bales then being lifted by crane into hold of ship-Fall of bale during lift, striking deceased-Plaintiff's claim that defendants had provided defective plant (in that hooks were inadequate) and/or had failed to adopt a safe system of working (in that at the time of the accident three instead of four men were engaged in hooking the bales in the barge)-Denial of negligence by defendants-Further defences of common employment and contributory negligence.

SCHWENSEN v. ELLINGER, HEATH, WESTERN & CO.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 79

Insurance brokers - Agency - Alleged appointment of sub-agents-Account- Plaintiff (a Danish national) appointed as representative of American insurance company to handle their reinsurance business in Europe-Outbreak of war in Europe-Risk of Germans occupying Denmark-Steps taken by plaintiff to ensure that American business would continue to be handled-letter written by plaintiff to defendants (though not received) authorizing them

to handle the [American company's] correspondence, accounts, etc., on my behalf in case Denmark should be invaded by a foreign power and thus preventing me from operating from [Denmark] the [American company's] affairs as far as reinsurance is concerned . . .

Letter put in as evidence of plaintiff's intention - Ambiguity - Agreement between defendants and American company that defendants would

operate the portfolio temporarily until [plaintiff] is in a position to take it over again . . .

Whether defendants were appointed as plaintiff's sub-agents for American business-Claim by plaintiff for an account of moneys received by defendants as sub-agents in respect of such business.

HIRAM WALKER & SONS, LTD. v. DOVER NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD., AND BRISTOL CITY LINE OF STEAMSHIPS, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 84

Bill of lading - Unseaworthiness - Overloading -Freeboard-Perils of the sea -Cargo shipped from Halifax (N.S.) to Bristol in steamship owned by first defendants and under time-charter to second defendants - Foundering of vessel on voyage during bad weather- Claim by cargo-owners for loss of cargo, it being alleged that vessel was unseaworthy in that she was overloaded on leaving Halifax-Evidence that ship, by reason of the consumption of bunkers, stores, etc., was not below her marks at the time of the loss - Claim brought against owners and against time-charterers - Cargo delivered by shippers to Canadian National Railways, who issued a through bill of lading and signed it as agents for charterers - Liability of owners as bailees-Canadian Water Carriage of Goods Act, 1936.

WELDRICK v. ESSEX & SUFFOLK EQUITABLE INSURANCE SOCIETY, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 91

Motor insurance - Third-party claim - Accident causing personal injuries to passenger-Award of damages against assured - Right of recovery against insurance company - Construction of policy-"Contract of employment"- Illegality - Immoral consideration - "Notice of the bringing of the proceedings" - Whether insurance company had proper notice - Plaintiff injured while travelling as passenger in car driven by M. and insured with defendant insurance company - Plaintiff awarded damages in action brought against M. - Judgment unsatisfied - Claim against insurance company- Provision in policy that company would not be liable in respect of personal in juries sustained by any person carried in the car

other than a passenger carried by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment. . . .

Plea by plaintiff that at the time of the accident she was employed by M. as his housekeeper and secretary - Defence: that plaintiff had not entered into any contract of employment with M.; that if plaintiff did enter into any contract of employment with M., the consideration for such contract was immoral, in that it included cohabitation together as man and mistress, and that therefore such contract was illegal and void; further, that plaintiff at the time of the accident was not in fact travelling by reason of any contract of employment; also, that plaintiff had failed to give, proper notice to the defendants of the proceedings brought against M.-Whether such notice waived by defendants - Road Traffic Act, 1934, Sect. 10 (2).

PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY v. UNION LIGHTERAGE COMPANY, LTD., AND WILLIAM WATKINS, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 103

Negligent navigation-Damage to pierhead -Barges collected at entrance to King George V Dock waiting to enter lock- First defendants' barge Solway, having been cast off from her tug, made fast to another barage-Solway in collision with, and causing damage to, pierhead -Claim by P.L.A. - Plea by first defendants that Solway was forced out of position by manoeuvres of second defendants' tug Tanga, which with her tow was also waiting to enter lock- Evidence that lighterman in charge of Solway was on board another barge when Solway commenced to move.

POWELL v.. DOCKS AND INLAND WATERWAYS EXECUTIVE.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 107

Master and servant-Common employment -Directed labour - Port transport worker - Safe system of working - Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedore while unloading machinery from railway wagons in Middlesbrough dock-Negligence of railway company's servants in charge of shunting operations - Plaintiff allocated to railway company under Dock Labour Scheme- Whether plaintiff was a general employee of the National Dock Labour Corporation and was employed temporarily by railway company- Applicability of doctrine of common employment - Whether plaintiff in common employment with railway company's servants in charge of shunting operations - Effect of Scheme - Risks impliedly undertaken - "Ordinary traffic risk"-Alleged failure by rail way company to provide safe system of working - Essential Work (Dock Labour) Order, 1943 (S.R. & O., No. 1114).

TYTHERLEIGH v. HARDING & VICK, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 120

Wharfingers - Charges - Unloading of timber from barges - Dispute as to agreed price for work - Plaintiff wharfingers instructed by defendants to unload timber from barges at plaintiffs' wharf-Dispute as to whether parties agreed upon rates - Inference to be drawn from correspondence and conversations between parties-Distinction between "ex-barge" rates and "landed" rates-Evidence that, at time agreement entered into, work at "ex-barge" schedule rates was uneconomical in itself, but that in normal times any such loss sustained was made good by work at "landed" schedule rates; of insistence by dock labourers upon "landed" rates; and of revised schedule issued by wharfingers' federation by which "ex-barge" rates were increased and "landed" rates reduced-Reasonable price - Change of circumstances - Matters to be taken into consideration - Increased overheads - Whether reasonable profit to be included in reasonable price.

LINDERN TRAWLER MANAGERS, LTD. v. W. H. J. TRAWLERS (A FIRM).

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 131

Ship - Agency - Contract - Novation - Agreement entered into between plaintiffs and W., member of a partnership owning a trawler, that plaintiffs would undertake the management and agency of the ship-Expenses incurred by plaintiffs-Claim against partnership-Defence: that partnership was formed for limited purpose of promoting company which would take over trawler, and that W., at the time of the alleged agreement, which was entered into after the formation of the company, was without authority to bind the partnership; further, if any agreement binding on the partnership was entered into, that plaintiffs had subsequently agreed to look to the company for payment-Partnership registered under Registration of Business Names Act, 1916-Business stated to be "trawling"-Inference to be drawn from correspondence between parties.

ANGLO-DANUBIAN TRANSPORT COMPANY, LTD. v. MINISTRY OF FOOD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 137

Charter-party - Nominated discharging berth-Diversion of ship by charterers to another berth - Loss of additional freight - Right of shipowners to damages-Charter of plaintiffs' ship by defendants for voyage from Dutch port to London, "above bridges if required" -Master ordered to proceed to New Hibernia Wharf (above London Bridge) for discharge - Arrival off wharf - Master then ordered to proceed to Hay's Dock (below London Bridge) for discharge -Freight payable in accordance with Chamber of Shipping schedule - "Above bridges Thames plus 2s. 3d. per ton"-Right of shipowners to payment of freight at "above bridges" rate- Alleged waiver by master.

J. S. HOLT & MOSELEY (LONDON), LTD. v. SIR CHARLES CUNNINGHAM & PARTNERS.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 141

Principal and agent - Agency contract - Construction - Freight and insurance charges incurred by plaintiffs (shipping agents) in respect of goods shipped to Indian principals-Defendants acting as buying agents for Indian principals -Goods shipped by plaintiffs in accordance with instructions given by defendants - Indian principals in liquidation-Liability for freight and shipping charges-Evidence that plaintiffs had originally dealt direct with Indian principals, and that they were reimbursed from credits established as a general rule in favour of suppliers- Subsequent agreement between A. (acting on behalf of Indian principals), plaintiffs and defendants, whereby defendants were appointed as buying agents authorized to operate credits established by principals and to issue shipping instructions to plaintiffs -Liability of defendants for charges incurred by plaintiffs-Whether defendants acted as principals in issuing shipping instructions to plaintiffs- Intention of parties-Presumption.

DEEVY v. OCEAN STEAM SHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 146

Negligence-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff stevedore engaged in discharging logs from 'tween decks of defendants' ship-Plaintiff employed as member of gang of four, consisting of signaller, winchman, and two men in 'tween decks -Logs stowed in wings-Method of discharge to pull logs into centre of hatch by means of ship's winch and then to hoist them overside by shore crane- Log wedged by obstruction-Obstruction moved by plaintiff and his mate, both men then retiring out of harm's way into wings-Sudden lurch forward by log, plaintiff being injured-Cause of accident-Alleged negligence of winchman - Whether winch was operated without signal being give and/or before plaintiff had reached a place of safety.

THE "OLDER."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 151

Collision - Narrow channel - Obligation on ship leaving main channel - Local by-law - Seamanship - Look-out - Collision between steamships Louis D. Brandeis and Older in entrance channel to Buenos Aires - Older, outward bound, navigating down north channel into main channel - Main channel a continuation of north channel-Louis D. Brandeis, inward bound, navigating in main channel and proposing to branch off into south channel - Local by-law providing: A vessel which, while navigating in a channel, manoeuvres in order to leave the same, will do so in such manner and circumstances as not to force those navigating in its waters to manoeuvre to avoid collision, grounding or other accidents.

Whether by-law applicable in circumstances to both ships-Case for Louis D. Brandeis that she sounded and repeated signals indicating that she was intending to enter south channel; that no reply was received from Older; that, Older coming down to the northward of mid-channel, Louis D. Brandeis took starboard helm action; and that by reason of port helm action or sheer by Older, the ships came into collision port bow to port bow-Alleged negligence of Older in failing to take off her way either by engine action or by dropping anchor-Case for Older that she was navigating on her proper side of mid-channel; that she reduced speed as Louis D. Brandeis approached; that she heard no signals from Louis D. Brandeis; and that ships would have passed each other in safety but for port helm action taken by Louis D. Brandeis -Bad look-out on Older - Whether contributing to collision.

NELLO SIMONI v. A/S M/S STRAUM.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 157

Arbitration-Award-Findings of fact- Error of law-Dispute between shipowners and charterers-Unseaworthiness -Damage to cargo-Fitness of ship for reception of cargo-Liability of shipowners-Charter by plaintiffs of defendants' refrigerated ship for carriage of fruit from Italy to United Kingdom-Ship ordered to proceed to Leghorn, where she loaded 7479 cases of pears for consignment to charterers- No steps taken to pre-cool holds before cargo shipped - Master informed by shippers that temperature throughout voyage should be maintained at 3 to 4 deg. (Cent.) - Temperature never reduced below 6 deg. (Cent.)-Fruit found to be rotten on discharge, 5989 cases being condemned-Claim brought by plaintiff charterers against defendant shipowners, alleging that, in breach of Clause 2 of charter-party, loss was due to

personal want of due diligence on the part of the owners or their manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she is properly manned, equipped and supplied or by the personal act or default of the owners or their manager . . .

Arbitration-Award in favour of charterers-Case stated at request of shipowners - Question for opinion of Court:

Do the matters alleged by the [charterers] amount to "personal want of due diligence on the part of the owners or their manager to make the vessel in all respects seaworthy and to secure that she is properly manned, equipped and supplied" or to "the personal act or default of the owners or their manager" within the meaning of Clause 2 of the charter-party?

Consideration of umpire's findings- Whether in part conclusions of law.

IRVIN v. HINE.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 162

Marine insurance-Constructive total loss - Partial loss - Valued policy - Stranding damage-Licence to repair unobtainable within reasonable time - Cost of repair - Reasonable depreciation-Measure of recovery - Plaintiff's steam trawler laid up in Tyne - Temporary repairs effected so that she could proceed to Peterhead for permanent repairs-Ship insured on voyage by defendant underwriters- Agreed value: £9000-Stranding on voyage on Jan. 20, 1942, ship being seriously damaged - Abandonment to underwriters on Feb. 9, 1942, not accepted, but plaintiff put in same position as if he had then issued writ- Ship refloated by Admiralty tugs four months later and beached - Salvage claim brought by Admiralty in Court of Session-Action undefended-Award of £500 on salvors' pleaded value of £1500 - Ship subsequently sold by auction for £685-Claim by plaintiff under policy alleging constructive total loss on ground that it was at all material times unlikely that assured would be able to obtain a licence to repair within reasonable time-Proof- Plea admittedly not within definition of constructive total loss contained in Sect. 60 of Marine Insurance Act, 1906 -Further claims that there was constructive total loss in that ship was reasonably abandoned on account of her actual total loss appearing unavoidable; and in that the cost of repairs would have exceeded her repaired (in this case, her insured) value - Alternative claim made for partial loss -Alleged duty upon assured (under Sect. 78 (4)) to cause survey of damage to be made-Evidence as to stranding damage and as to probable cost of repair-Ascertainment of reasonable depreciation arising from unrepaired damage-Comparison between damaged value (accepted by parties to be £685) and undamaged value-Whether, as defendants contended, reasonable depreciation (1) was the difference Irvin v. Hine. K.B. 163 between her damaged value (£685) and her alleged true undamaged value (£2000), i.e., £2000 less £685=£1315; or (2) was the proportion of her insured value based on the depreciation in her alleged true value, i.e., 1315/2000 X £9000; or, as plaintiff contended, was the difference between her damaged value and her insured value, i.e., £9000 less £685 - Amount recoverable for salvage charges-Interest-Costs-All Risks Trawler Clauses, Clause 15 - Marine Insurance Act, 1906, Sects. 27 (4), 56 (1), 60, 65, 69 (3), 78 (4), 91.

MONA OIL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLY COMPANY, LTD. v. RHODESIA RAILWAYS, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 178

Contract - Breach - Prevention of performance - Implied condition to co-operate - Instructions given by defendants to their agents-Alleged obstruction by agents - Mutual misunderstanding - Sale of oil tanks by plaintiffs to defendants -Immediate payment required as sellers were not in actual possession of tanks but were in position to buy for re-sale-Term of contract that "Immediately the goods have passed inspection and are ready for shipment, invoices are to be sent direct to the [defendants]" - "Payment against invoice"-Contract varied by mutual consent, the following further clause being added to contract: As an alternative against bill of lading payment may be made against signed confirmation [by defendants' shipping agents] that the tanks are now at the disposal of the [defendants].

Interview between plaintiffs' representatives and defendants' shipping agents Evidence that such agents had been informed of position in general terms by defendants, but that they had not been supplied with full instructions- Resultant misunderstanding - Complaint made by plaintiffs to defendants that agents were unwilling to co-operate - Plaintiffs not informed by defendants that instructions had (as was the fact) in meantime been sent to agents-No further communication between plaintiffs and defendants' agents, defendants being notified by plaintiffs that

in those circumstances we must ask for payment in accordance with the contract [as originally drawn up]. The tanks have already been invoiced to you, and we shall be glad to have your cheque in due course.

Tanks, which were to be delivered in parts, inspected by defendants' engineers, who reported that materials were generally in serviceable condition but that certain parts would have to be selected, as some were corroded- Defendants informed by plaintiffs that only good parts would be dispatched, and offered, by arrangement with plaintiffs' suppliers, a written assurance that the tanks were being held at their (defendants') disposal-Refusal by defendants to pay until parts to be appropriated to contract had been segregated, inspected again and held to their order-Delay-Contract cancelled by plaintiffs' suppliers - Action brought by plaintiffs against defendants for breach of contract-Plea by plaintiffs that contract impliedly cast upon defendants the duty of procuring their agents to ascertain whether the tanks were at defendants' disposal; also, of doing nothing to prevent or obstruct the payment - Duty of defendant buyers.

SPAIN v. OCEAN STEAM SHIP COMPANY, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 188

Negligence - Safe system of working - Vicarious liability of employer-Dock labourer, S., employed by defendants as one of gang engaged in shifting cargo from dock shed-Mobile crane working in narrow avenue between piled cargo -Cargo lifted by crane, swung round and deposited on bogies behind-S. engaged in transferring cargo from fall of crane to bogies - S. found crushed against cases forming avenue - Claim brought by widow of S. against employers - Alleged failure by employers to provide safe system of working - Liability of employers for negligence of their crane driver.

ZILLAH SHIPPING AND CARRYING COMPANY, LTD. v. DUNGARVAN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL. [THE "BEECHFIELD."]

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 191

Docks and harbours - Negligence of harbour-master - Bad berth - Duty to warn - Liability of harbour authority-"Actual fault or privity" - Limitation of liability - Damage admittedly sustained by plaintiffs' steamship in taking the ground in Dungarvan Harbour - Ship put in position under instruction of harbour-master -Dispute as to cause of damage -Whether due to use of ship's propeller or to existing condition of berth-Duty of harbour-master - Responsibility of harbour authority.

THE "TROILUS."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 195

Salvage-Towage or salvage-Prolonged towage - Alternative arrangements available to owners of salved vessel- Reasonableness-Services rendered by motor vessels Stentor and Glenogle to steamship Troilus-Propeller lost in Indian Ocean while on voyage from Australia to Liverpool - Towage for 1050 miles by Stentor (sister ship) to Aden, where Troilus was only allowed to anchor outside the harbour-Services by Stentor admitted to be salvage services-Troilus subsequently towed by Glenogle 4300 miles to Falmouth- Nature of such further services- Whether "from safety to safety"- Suez admittedly first port of refuge- Possibility of repairs at Suez, Alexandria or Malta-Availability of ocean-going tug-Risk to cargo-Duty of prudent shipowner.

HORTON v. LONDON GRAVING DOCK COMPANY, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 207

Negligence-Dangerous premises-Invitee -Duty of occupier-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff welder while working in fish house of trawler which was being repaired in wet dock-Plaintiff's employers under sub-contract with defendant ship-repairers-Defendants in occupation of ship but not occupiers of dock-Fall from staging erected by defendants - Common law claim brought by plaintiff-Cause of fall- Dangerous nature of staying-Alleged duty upon occupier to give warning of unusual danger-Meaning of "unusual danger"-Evidence that plaintiff had worked on staging for some weeks before accident, and that he had complained of the danger to defendants' charge-hand-Volenti non fit injuria.

THE "GODABORG."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 217

Salvage-Rudder out of action-Services rendered by trawler Unitia to motor fishing vessel Godaborg-Unitia, fishing 10 miles S.E. of Barra Head, informed by wireless station that Godaborg had lost her rudder six miles S.W. of Barra Head-Godaborg located by Unitia and towed 329 miles to Fleetwood in bad weather-Duration of services 66 hours -Salvage services admitted-Dispute as to gear lost by Unitia-Damage to windlass-Evidence as to loss of fishing.

THE "HEMBURY."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 223

Collision-River-Ship emerging from dock -Speed-Look-out-Collision between steamships Baltic Queen and Hembury in Ricer Mersey - Baltic Queen, with head tug, emerging from Brunswick Dock under starboard wheel, her intention being to get on to a down-river heading - Hembury, with head and stern tugs, lying up river off Brunswick Dock entrance, stemming flood tide-Impact between stem of Hembury and port side of Baltic Queen -Baltic Queen sunk-Whether collision due to coming ahead by Hembury or to Baltic Queen being carried by tide on to Hembury's stem-Astern action taken by Hembury - Whether she was negligent in failing to go astern sooner.

ROYAL GREEK GOVERNMENT v. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 228

Charter-party - Explosion in cargo on board - Detention for repairs - Liability of charterer for hire - Loss incurred by owners-Compliance with charterer's orders to load cargo-Right of owners to indemnity - Cause of explosion-Accident to cargo-Remoteness of damage-Findings of arbitrator -Charter of ship to load coal at Barry for Rio Janeiro-Full cargo loaded, ship then proceeding to Milford Haven to await convoy-Leakage discovered in fresh water tanks-Removal of trap door and hatch covers for inspection of tanks-Explosion owing to spark or flame introduced during repair of tank, followed by further explosions, causing damage to superstructure and necessitating repairs to ship - Damage to cargo negligible - Action brought by owners against charterer, claiming hire, etc., during repair, and/or an indemnity against loss caused by detention of ship for repair-Construction of charter-party, which provided (inter alia): 9. . . . The charterer to indemnify the owners against all consequences or liabilities, arising from the master, officers or agents signing bills of lading or other documents or otherwise complying with such orders . . . 11 ( A). In the event of drydocking or other necessary measures to maintain the efficiency of the vessel, deficiency of men or owners' stores, breakdown of machinery, damage to hull or other accident, either hindering or preventing the working of the vessel and continuing for more than twenty-four consecutive hours, no hire to be paid in respect of any time lost thereby during the period in which the vessel is unable to perform the service immediately required. 11 ( B). In the event of the vessel being driven into port or to anchorage through stress of weather, trading to shallow harbours or to rivers or ports with bars or suffering an accident to her cargo, any detention of the vessel and/or expenses resulting from such detention to be for the charterer's account even if such detention and/or expenses, or the cause by reason of which either is incurred, be due to, or be contributed to by, the negligence of the owner's servants. Charterer not to be responsible for any expenses under this clause which are recoverable by owners from their marine insurance underwriters. 13. . . . The charterer to be responsible for loss or damage caused to the vessel or to the owners by goods being loaded contrary to the terms of the charter or by improper or careless bunkering or loading, stowing or discharging of goods or any other improper or negligent act on their part or that of their servants.

Arbitration - Finding by arbitrator that explosions were due to variety of causes (which included the nature of the cargo), but that the direct causes were (a) the act which caused the spark or flame, and (b) the explosive atmosphere; that the first explosion was not, but that the subsequent explosions were, an accident to cargo within Clause 11 ( B); that the damage to the superstructure was an accident within Clause 11 ( A) preventing the working of the ship; that the consequent detention was not a matter within Clause 11 ( B); and that therefore the owners were not entitled to recover - Case stated - Whether consequences of complying with charterer's order to load particular cargo within scope of indemnity provided by Clause 9-Limits of clause, bearing in mind implications from terms of other clauses-Right of Court to review arbitrator's findings on causation- Whether question of law or fact- Remoteness-Cause of detention.

UNITED STATES v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 240

Insurance - Marine or war - Warlike operations - Negligent navigation - Collision between U.S. steamship John Worthington (under charter to U.S. Government) and U.S. minesweeper YMS-12 in approaches to New York Harbour - Damage to minesweeper - Collision admittedly due to negligent navigation by both vessels-Provision in charter that United States should provide "a standard hull war risk policy of the War Shipping Administration" and that shipowners should assume or insure against all other risks -Claim for half damages brought by U.S. against owners of John Worthington - Cross-claim by owners of John Worthington alleging that collision was consequence of hostilities or warlike operations and that they were accordingly entitled to recover from U.S. as war risk insurer the amount recoverable from them by U.S. as owner of minesweeper - Decision of District Court that collision was a consequence of the warlike operation on which the minesweeper was engaged and that owners of John Worthington were entitled to judgment on claim and cross-claim - Appeal by U.S. - Dominant and effective cause-Onus of proof - American and British cases reviewed-"Rule of conformity."

A. S. ONASSIS v. H. P. DREWRY, S.A.R.L., AND OTHERS.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 249

Contract-Nullity-French company-Non-existence - Enforcement of award of damages for breach-Conflict of laws- Capacity-Charter-party entered into between plaintiff, as owner, and first defendants (French private limited liability company), as charterers - Breach by plaintiff - Arbitration - Award of damages in favour of charterers -Proceedings to enforce award successfully taken by first defendants both in England and in United States -Present action brought by plaintiff against first defendants and second defendant (liquidator of first defendants) claiming declarations that first defendants, when charter-party was entered into, were non-existent as a private limited liability company under French law, and that therefore award and subsequent Court orders were null and void; also, against third defendants (solicitors acting for first and second defendants) claiming declaration that they were liable, on the ground of breach of warranty of authority, to indemnify plaintiff against costs incurred by him in such proceedings-Proof of non-existence of company-French law - Automatic dissolution where company in effective control of one shareholder-Evidence of shareholding-Alleged holding by two shareholders of whom one was mere nominee - "Simulation" - Authority of "gérant" or liquidator after dissolution.

THE "BRITISH CONFIDENCE."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 262

Collision - Fog - Signals - "Lying stopped" - Unchanging bearing - Collision between French steamship Joseph Blot and British motor vessel British Confidence off Cape Trafalgar in fog-Vessels on almost opposite courses crossing at fine angle-Both vessels sounding for fog - "Lying stopped" signals sounded by Joseph Blot shortly before collision- Vessels sighted by each other at distance of between 600 and 700 ft.- Impact between port bow of Joseph Blot and port side of British Confidence-Whether Joseph Blot was "lying stopped"-Unsatisfactory nature of contemporary documents on both sides-Inconsistencies with pleaded cases-Demeanour of witnesses -Credibility - Appeal by British Confidence against decision of Lord Merriman, P., that she was alone to blame-Joint negligence-Doctrine of "last opportunity"-Collision Regulations, Arts. 15, 16.

THE "KIRSTEN SKOU."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 279

Collision - Narrow channel - Gateway between buoys in North Sea-Crossing courses - Crossing rule - Collision between steamships Kaupo and Kirsten Skou near Humber Light-vessel - Kaupo, outward bound from Humber, on course of 83 deg. (mag.); Kirsten Skou, inward bound to Humber, on course of 310 deg. (mag.)-Vessels approaching each other, with Kirsten Skou three points on starboard bow of Kaupo and Kaupo three points on port bow of Kirsten Skou-Strong north-easterly breeze with tide setting to southward at approximately two knots -Kaupo's case that she was following recommended route for vessels leaving Humber and was making for gateway between two buoys (four cables apart); and that she was put in such difficulty by Kirsten Skou (which failed to comply with the narrow channel rule between the buoys) that collision with the southerly buoy or between the two vessels was inevitable-Plea by Kirsten Skou that navigation was not limited to a course between the buoys, and that Kaupo was to blame for her breach of the crossing rule in failing to give way -Whether narrow channel rule or crossing rule applied-Duty of Kirsten Skou as stand-on vessel - Collision Regulations, Arts. 21, 25.

TAYLOR v. THAMES CHARTERS, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 289

Contract-Hire of named motor cruiser- Warranty by owners ("motor cruiser hire specialists") as to fitness-Absence of fire-fighting equipment - Fire on board - Hirer injured - Damage to cruiser and equipment - Defendants' motor cruiser hired by plaintiff for cruise on River Thames - Vessel equipped with necessary furniture, utensils, etc.-Flaring up of Primus stove (part of equipment supplied) during use for cooking purposes- Plaintiff, unable to extinguish fire, burned in attempting to throw stove overboard-Damage to cruiser-Claim brought by plaintiff alleging breach of express or implied warranty by defendants that vessel was properly equipped and fit for the purpose for which it was hired-Chemical fire-extinguisher on board admittedly empty-Dispute as to whether vessel was equipped with sand -Plaintiff's attention not specifically called to presence of sand or its whereabouts -Evidence of search made after fire - Failure to discover any sand - Breach of condition contained in licence issued in accordance with Thames Motor Launch By-laws, 1926-Counterclaim by defendants in respect of damage to vessel and equipment.

G. W. GRACE & CO., LTD. v. GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 297

Charter-party - Safe port - Ice - Extraordinary danger-Damage to ship- Liability of charterers - Baltime Charter-party for hire of steamship Sussex Oak, which provided by Clause 2

for the carriage of lawful merchandise only between good and safe ports or places where she can safely lie always afloat (or safe aground where other vessels of similar size and draft customarily load and discharge aground in safety) within the following limits:

United Kingdom, Continent, Elbe, Brest limits . . .

Further provisions in charter-party:

7. The vessel to be delivered on the expiration of the charter in the same good order as when delivered to the charterers (fair wear and tear excepted) at an ice-free port in the charterers' option. 9. . . . . . . . The master to be under the orders of the charterers as regards employment, agency, or other arrangements. The charterers to indemnify the owners against all consequences arising from the master, officers or agents signing bills of lading or other documents or otherwise complying with such orders . . . 10. The charterers to furnish the master with all instructions and sailing directions . . . 15. The vessel not to be ordered to nor bound to enter . . . (b) any icebound place or any place where lights, lightships, marks and buoys are or are likely to be withdrawn by reason of ice on the vessel's arrival or where there is risk that ordinarily the vessel would not be able on account of ice to reach the place or to get out after having completed loading or discharging. The vessel not to be obliged to force ice. If on account of ice the master considers it dangerous to remain at the loading or discharging place for fear of the vessel being frozen in and/or damaged, he has liberty to sail to a convenient open place and await the charterers' fresh instructions.

Vessel ordered by charterers to load flour at London for Hamburg and on arrival there to load timber for London -Ice damage sustained in River Elbe- Claim by owners-Evidence that ship had to force her way through ice both in reaching and in leaving Hamburg- Navigational dangers extraordinary both in character and in degree- Arbitration - Award in favour of owners - Case stated - Meaning of "unsafe port"-Whether port unsafe by reason of ice dangers encountered on way-Applicability of Clause 2, bearing in mind specific ice provisions contained in Clause 15-Temporary condition of unsafety-Evidence of unsafety - Damages - Remoteness - Liberty of master to refuse to sail to unsafe port-Voluntary act of master in proceeding up river.

IN RE PRATT, L. H. (A BANKRUPT). EX PARTE ARBON, LANGRISH & CO., LTD. v. TRUSTEE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE BANKRUPT.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 309

Insurance brokers-Commission-Termination of employment-Obligation to continue payment-P. employed by firm of insurance brokers-Half commission payable to P. in respect of insurance business introduced by him- Resignation of P., followed shortly afterwards by bankruptcy-Claim by trustee in bankruptcy in respect of commissions alleged still to be due to P.-Proof that such commissions were payable-Evidence of letters written by firm and of "brokerage suspense account" kept by them-Appeal by firm against decision of learned County Court Judge that such commissions were payable.

HOBSON v. BARTRAM & SONS, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 313

Shipbuilders - Trial trip - Negligence - Unfenced hatch - Fall into hold - Liability of shipbuilders-Ship in charge of shipbuilders' manager during trials-Ship being worked by shipbuilders' employees-Employees of sub-contractors on board to complete refrigerating engineering work-Representatives of purchasers also on board to observe performance of ship - Plaintiff, employed by sub-contractors, working in 'tween decks-Independent inspection of holds made by purchasers' representatives, without knowledge or authority of shipbuilders' manager - Guard rail and light removed during plaintiff's temporary absence - Fall into hold on return-Claim brought against shipbuilders - Relationship between defendants and purchasers' representatives-Admitted negligence of purchasers' representatives-Whether purchasers' representatives were in the particular circumstances agents of defendants-Common interest.

FALMOUTH BOAT CONSTRUCTION, LTD. v. HOWELL.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 320

Repairs to ship-Illegality-Emergency legislation - Licence - Authority of licensing officer - Oral permission - Omnia pr‘sumuntur rite esse acta- Repairs executed by plaintiffs to defendant's ship-Claim for balance for cost of repairs alleged to be due-Necessity for licence to execute repairs-Application made by plaintiffs for licence "to complete B.O.T. requirements, for modified Steam 3 Certificate" - Licensing officers authorized to sign licences-Licensing officers instructed by Admiralty that they "ought not to delay the putting in hand of obvious repairs merely pending the actual issue of a licence" - Work commenced by plaintiffs upon receiving oral permission of local licensing officer-Written licence subsequently issued authorizing the carrying out of repairs, alterations and drydocking-Provision in licence that it "shall automatically determine if any unauthorized repairs, alterations or drydocking are carried out"- Whether licence retrospective - Construction of licence - Preliminary questions submitted to Official Referee -Defence Regulations, 1939 (as amended up to 1947), Nos. 55, 92- Restriction of Repairs of Ships order, 1940.

THE "FORT LIVINGSTONE."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 332

Collision - Convoy - Crossing convoys - Detachment of single ship from convoy in altering course - Seamanship - Lights-Look-out-Helm action-Duty to take off way - Collision between steamships G. Harrison Smith and Fort Livingstone in approaches to Firth of Clyde-G. Harrison Smith in convoy on course of 95 deg. (true); Fort Livingstone in convoy on course of 235 deg. (true)-Convoys aware of each other's presence-Ships instructed by leaders to take certain avoiding action- Signals misunderstood by G. Harrison Smith-Starboard helm action by G. Harrison Smith, taking her away from her own convoy and across course of Fort Livingstone's convoy-Duty of G. Harrison Smith as "single ship" - Whether Fort Livingstone was exhibiting navigation lights-Ships on crossing courses, with Fort Livingstone as "give way" ship-Criticism of Fort Livingstone's action in porting and in keeping her speed - Whether Fort Livingstone guilty of breach of good seamanship in failing "to take such action as will best aid to avert collision" -Notice to Mariners, No. 2175 of 1942-Collision Regulations, Art. 27.

THE "ROYKSUND."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 342

Collision-Look-out-Converging courses- Crossing or overtaking-Contributory negligence - Plaintiff motor vessel Rijnstroom proceeding at 10 knots on a course of 300 deg. (true) in North Sea near Galloper Light-vessel-Defendant steamship Royksund making seven knots on course of 8 deg. (true)-Sighting of each other at distance of six miles in daylight-Royksund four to five points on port how of Rijnstroom-Rijnstroom 30 deg. abaft starboard beam of Royksund - Maintenance of course and speed by both vessels - Applicability of crossing rule or overtaking rule-Impact between stem of Rijnstroom and starboard side of Royksund - Ineffective manoeuvres taken by both vessels when collision imminent.

THE "ENID" (OWNERS) v. NEATH HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS. [THE "ENID."]

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 344

Docks, Harbours, etc.-Harbour authority -Approaches to port-Guiding lights -Failure to light-Grounding of vessel approaching port - Contributory negligence-Apportionment of blame- Grounding of auxiliary sailing barge Enid in endeavouring to enter port of Neath from Swansea Bay - Narrow channel - Approach only possible at certain states of tide-Normal practice for request to be made to harbour authority for Monkstone Lights to be lighted-Monkstone Lights recognized guiding lights for entry to port of Neath-Monkstone Lights not lighted, Enid being mistakenly directed by her master towards other lights which were not in fact guiding lights-Grounding on Baglan Sands - Action brought against harbour authority-Dispute as to whether request for lights was made -Whether master of Enid should have realized sooner that Monkstone Lights were not lighted-Cause of casualty.

STAG LINE, LTD. v. BOARD OF TRADE.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 356

Charter-party-Arrived ship-Demurrage -Commencement of lay days-Arrival at nominated loading port - Nomination of loading berth by charterers- Delay in berthing-Right of charterers to nominate berth-Custom-"Scanfin" Adapted Form Charter-party - Chartering by defendants of plaintiffs' steamship Cydonia to

proceed to one or two safe ports East Canada or Newfoundland, place or places as ordered by charterers

and there load cargo of pitprops- Miramichi nominated by charterers as loading port-Arrival at Miramichi, ship anchoring off Chatham-Notice of readiness given by master-Millbank then nominated by charterers as loading berth-Delay in berthing-Claim by shipowners for demurrage on basis that Cydonia was an arrived ship when she anchored off Chatham and notice of readiness was given-Contention by charterers that on a true construction of charter-party, and/or by custom, Cydonia was not an arrived ship until berthed at Millbank-Construction of charter-party - Express right of charterers to nominate "place" to load -Meaning of "place"-Proof of custom.

PEARCE v. ARMITAGE.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 361

Master and servant-Safe plant and appliances-Defect arising during use -Injury to servant - Liability of master-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff dock labourer during discharge of ship overside into craft- Plaintiff employed by defendant cargo superintendent acting for receivers- Phosphate cargo loaded by stevedores into baskets and raised by ship's derrick on to staging on deck-Baskets then weighed and contents tipped down chute by plaintiff-Weight of full basket borne by rope "safety band" fitted near top of chute-Allegation made by plaintiff that his arm was strained by reason of absence of "safety band"-Evidence as to provision of "safety band"-Obligation of defendant to maintain-Failure by plaintiff to report or remedy defect- Claim dismissed by Mr. Commissioner Clark on ground that absence of "safety band" was a matter of which defendant could not be presumed to have been aware and an omission which he could not reasonably be expected to guard against.

THE "COLLINGBOURNE."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 370

Collision-Fog-Excessive speed-Failure to stop engines on hearing vessel forward of beam-Collision between steamships Easton and Collingbourne off Flamborough Head - Vessels approaching on almost opposite courses - Collingbourne sighted by Easton two to three points on port bow, at distance of about 300 ft., and crossing from port to starboard-Hard-a-starboard and full astern action by Easton-Easton sighted by Collingbourne two to three points on starboard bow, at distance of about 300 ft., and crossing from starboard to port-Full astern action by Collingbourne- Impact between stem of Collingbourne and port side of Easton at angle of six points leading aft on Easton-Dispute as to whether vessels altered course before sighting each other-Collision Regulations, Art. 16.

THE "BERWICKSHIRE."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 376

Collision - Damages - Alien enemy- Interest-Collision between French sailing vessel Anne de Bretagne and British steamship Berwickshire in Atlantic Ocean in November, 1940- Anne de Bretagne sunk-Owners of French vessel (plaintiffs) then alien enemies, as France in occupation of Germans - Collision action subsequently brought in Admiralty Court against owners of Berwickshire (defendants), writ being issued in September, 1945-Berwickshire found alone to blame-Reference to Registrar upon damages-Awards in respect of replacement cost of vessel, loss of cargo, loss of crew's effects, and agency-Interest allowed by Registrar from Oct. 13, 1944 (date of recognition of de Gaulle Government) until June 23, 1949 (date of postponement of reference at plaintiffs' request) and from July 28, 1949 (date of report) until payment-Motion in objection by plaintiffs-Right of plaintiffs to interest from date of casualty-Whether interest irrecoverable during period in which payment of principal debt was prohibited by law, i.e., during time when plaintiffs were alien enemies-Discretion of learned Judge.

CHANDRIS v. ISBRANDTSEN-MOLLER COMPANY, INCORPORATED.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 385

Charter-party-Demurrage-Damages for detention - Dangerous cargo -Shipment with consent of master-Ejusdem generis rule - Interest - Plaintiff's steamship chartered by defendants to load in New York/Jacksonville range a full and complete cargo for discharge at Liverpool-"Cargo to consist of lawful general merchandise, excluding acids, explosives, arms, ammunition or other dangerous cargo . . ."-Incorporation of United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936-Cargo shipped including 1546 tons of turpentine- Freight accepted by shipowner at charter-party rate-Arrival at Liverpool dock-Ship ordered by authorities to discharge overside in river owing to dangerous nature of turpentine-Extra expenses incurred by ship-Additional time taken in discharging-Claim by shipowner-Measure of damage where dangerous cargo shipped in breach of charter-party - Whether turpentine "other dangerous cargo"-Interpretation of ejusdem generis rule-Purpose of rule-Turpentine shipped with consent of master-Liability of shipper under U.S. Act where cargo of a "dangerous nature" shipped with consent of master-Whether liability of charterers in respect of additional time taken in discharging dangerous (or "non-contract") cargo limited by provisions of demurrage clause or assessable as damages at large-Applicability of demurrage clause assuming shipment of turpentine was in breach of fundamental obligation under charter-party -Shipowner's option where "non-contract" cargo tendered-Affirmation by shipowner - Effect - Arbitration- Award including damages for detention in respect of additional discharging time taken-Jurisdiction of arbitrator to award interest-Case stated-United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936, Sect. 4 (6).

KERR v. WHIMSTER & CO., LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 399

Negligence-Invitee-Accident on board ship-Obstruction-Duty of occupiers to provide safe premises and safe means of access-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff coal trimmer in course of his employment in defendants' ship- Hatch covers piled on deck-Alleged necessity for plaintiff, on leaving ship, to step on hatch covers-Collapse of pile, plaintiff being thrown to deck- Claim brought at common law - Whether defendants had failed to provide safe premises and safe means of access-Onus of proof.

SWIFT v. REARDON SMITH LINE, LTD., AND JOSEPH RANK, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 402

Negligence - Breach of statutory duty - Faulty derrick-Defective span wire- Duty of inspection-Common law negligence -Fatal accident to dock labourer employed by stevedores (second defendants) engaged in unloading grain from first defendants' steamship in dock at Birkenhead-Dismantling of partition in feeder box-Use of derrick to remove stiffener-Snapping of span wire when power applied-Collapse of derrick-Action brought by widow against shipowners and against stevedores -Right of stevedores to indemnity -Cause of break in span wire-Evidence of recent statutory inspection and surveying of ship's gear by engineering firm, and of condition of span wire at time of accident-Whether break due to improper jerking of wire by stevedores' winchman - Liability under Docks Regulations, 1934-Regulations 18 (b), 20 (a), 49.

RICKMAN v. RAILWAY EXECUTIVE.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 409

Negligence-Joint or severable negligence -Sudden peril created by plaintiff- Liability of defendants for action subsequently taken-Collision between plaintiff's yacht Micawber and defendants' ferry boat Farringford in River Lymington - Plaintiff thrown into water-Paddles of ferry boat stopped, but subsequently restarted, plaintiff being drawn under paddle and injured -Plaintiff admittedly responsible for collision-Alleged negligence of defendants in restarting paddles-Claim by plaintiff upheld by learned Judge- Appeal by defendants-Whether situation of peril created by plaintiff still existed when paddles were restarted- Bywell Castle rule-Contributory negligence -Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945, Sect. 1.

APPLEBY v. CUNARD WHITE STAR, LTD. BISHOP v. SAME. [THE "QUEEN MARY."]

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 415

Collision-Damages-Reference to Registrar -Life claims-Assessment-Death of naval ratings-Matters to be taken into account in making awards in respect of (a) death of married man, leaving wife and child surviving, and both being in receipt of naval pension; (b) death of single man, leaving parents surviving-Collision between steamship Queen Mary and H.M. cruiser Curacoa in 1942-Cruiser sunk, over 300 members of her crew being lost-Queen Mary in part to blame for collision-Claims brought against owners of Queen Mary (a) by B. M. B., widow of P. K. B. (a C.P.O. engine room artificer of over 20 years' service), suing on her own behalf and on behalf of her son (P. R. B.), and also as administratrix of the estate of P. K. B.; (b) by H. J. A., father of D. A., ordinary seaman, suing on his own behalf and as as administrator of the estate of D. A. - Awards by learned Registrar: (a)(i) Under Fatal Accidents Acts: B. M. B.: £2502=£3750 (based on weekly provision by P. K. B. to his family, civilian prospects, etc.) less £713 (naval pension already received by widow), less £100 (value of husband's estate). less £85 (lost effects reduced from £103 10s.), and less £350 (awarded for loss of expectation of life under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934). P. R. B.: £84=£160 (estimated value of dependency at time of father's death) less £76 (naval pension already received). (ii) Under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934: B. M. B.: £350 (loss of expectation of life of P. K. B.). Appleby v. Cunard White Star, Ltd.; Bishop v. Same. Adm. 416 (iii) Special damage: B. M. B.: £85 (loss of effects reduced from £103 10s.).

Total award: £3021.

(b) (i) Under Fatal Accidents Acts: £711=£1400 (estimated value of future provision by D. A. to parents) less £500 (awarded for loss of expectation of life under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934), less £147 (value of D. A.'s estate), and less £42 (lost effects reduced from £46). (ii) Under Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934: £500 (loss of expectation of life of D.A.). (iii) Special damage: £42 (loss of effects reduced from £46).

Total award: £1253.

Motions in objection to Registrar's report - Discretion of Registrar - Matters to be considered.

THE "FREDEN."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 427

Limitation of liability-Tug and tows in same ownership-Claim to limit in respect of tug and one tow-Onus of proof-Plaintiff's tug George Livesey with lighters Canterbury, Blossom Time and Bittern in tow navigating up River Thames-Tug and lighters in same ownership - Defendants' steamship Freden moored at buoys-Freden broken adrift by Bittern-Damage to Freden's rudder by collision with Bittern - Negligent navigation admitted by plaintiffs-Claim to limit liability to statutory tonnage of George Livesey and Bittern-Defence: that limitation found should also include sums appropriate to statutory tonnage of Canterbury and Blossom Time.

ACKROYDS AIR TRAVEL, LTD. v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 431

Civil Aviation Act, 1946-Offence-Aiding and abetting-Scheduled journey-Air service maintained between South Africa and England by M. Ltd., a South African company-M. Ltd. subsequently prohibited by Order in Council from landing their aircraft in England-Flights then terminated in Paris-Agreement entered into between M. Ltd. and appellants (an English travel agency) whereby appellants agreed to arrange for charter of aircraft for carriage of passengers and their luggage to Paris for re-embarkation into aircraft belonging to M. Ltd. -Appellants convicted by Magistrate of aiding and abetting the carrying of passengers for hire or reward upon a scheduled journey between London and Paris, contrary to Sect. 23 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946 - Case stated - Offence committed by companies owning chartered aircraft - Appellants aware of circumstances constituting the offence -Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, Sect. 5.

BOARD OF TRADE v. OWNERS OF "PORJUS." (RENAMED "MOLDAVIA.")

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 434

Bill of lading - Short delivery - Proof -"All conditions as per" Esparto Charter-party - Esparto grass loaded in bales and loose - Method of computing shortage on discharge - Defendants' steamship chartered by Ministry of Supply to load cargo of esparto grass "in hydraulic and/or mechanically pressed bales" at North African ports for delivery at Granton- Shipment of 10,600 bales (including loose grass)-Provision in charter-party that The ship will be held liable to discharge at destination the same number of bales as that for which captain will have signed bill of lading, the bale equivalent of any loose grass discharged being calculated on the average discharged dry bale weight of the cargo. Should any portion of the deck cargo be discharged damp or wet, freight of same shall be calculated on the average weight of similar dry bales.

Delivered cargo including wet and damaged bales and loose grass-Claim by Board of Trade (holders of bills of lading) for short delivery-Dispute as to correct method of calculation of number of bales of loose grass discharged -Whether to be calculated by reference to total number of bales discharged dry (as claimants contended) or by reference to the dry weight of all the bales discharged-Claim based on average weight of total number of bales discharged (whether wet, dry or damaged), difference in result being negligible - Arbitration - Award in claimants' favour-Case stated.

HESKELL v. CONTINENTAL EXPRESS, LTD., AND ANOTHER.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 438

Contract-Breach-Sale of goods to foreign buyer - Goods not shipped owing to breach of contract and/or negligence of warehousemen-Bills of lading issued by loading brokers although goods not on board-Settlement of claim brought by buyer against shipper - Claim by shipper against warehousemen and loading brokers-Detinue-Breach of warranty of authority-Damages-Sale by plaintiff to buyer in Teheran of goods warehoused by first defendants- Instructions given by plaintiff to his forwarding agents (B. & Co.) requesting them to register for shipping space for transit from Manchester to Persian Gulf-Registration of shipping space by his forwarding agents, plaintiff being informed by them that his goods should be dispatched to Salford Dock- First defendants instructed by plaintiff to send goods to named steamship in Salford Dock-Draft bill of lading sent by plaintiff's forwarding agents to second defendants (loading brokers)- Signed bill of lading issued by second defendants, although plaintiff's goods not put on board-Payment for goods by foreign buyer against documents which included bill of lading)-Goods discovered 15 months later to be still in first defendants' warehouse - Foreign buyer's claim against plaintiff for loss of profit settled for £1319 - Action brought by plaintiff (1) against first defendants claiming damages for breach of contract and/or negligence in failing to ship; and damages for detinue; (2) against second defendants claiming damages in that they had issued a bill of lading although the goods were not shipped; and damages for breach of warranty of authority-Relationship between shipper and loading brokers considered - Liability of loading brokers in issuing unauthorized bill of lading-Breach by first defendants of their instructions to deliver goods for shipment-Whether continuing - Issue Heskell v. Continental Express, Ltd., and Another. K.B. 439 of unauthorized bill of lading as novus actus interveniens-Whether dominant cause of delay-Co-operating causes of plaintiff's loss-Damages payable to sub-buyer as head of damage.

LLEWELLIN AND ANOTHER v. GROSSMAN.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 462

Contract-Specific performance-Breach of contract - Sale of shares - Enforceability -Agreement between plaintiffs and defendant whereby defendant agreed to purchase shares in fishing company owned by plaintiffs-Whether sale subject to condition as to survey- Alleged waiver of condition, survey being substituted by managers' report on trawlers' condition-Acceptance of managers' report denied by defendant -Fall in market value of trawlers- Failure by defendant to implement agreement-Claim by plaintiffs for specific performance or damages - Contention by defendant that agreement was void for uncertainty or that damages were adequate remedy.

JAMES LAMONT & CO., LTD. v. HYLAND, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 477

Practice-Appeal-Fresh notice of appeal after consent to dismissal-Discretion of Court-Action brought by plaintiff ship-repairers against defendant acceptors of bill of exchange given in respect of repair work to ship-Order of Lynskey, J., giving plaintiffs leave to sign judgment under Order 14- Notice of appeal given by defendants- Subsequent consent by defendants to dismissal of appeal, consent being signed by defendants' solicitors and initialled by presiding Judge of Court of Appeal-Payment made by defendants -No order drawn up or entered- Change of solicitors by defendants and fresh notice of appeal given-Discretion of Court to allow appeal to proceed. Practice-Summary proceedings under Order 14-Claim against acceptors of bill of exchange given in pursuance of ship repair contract-Leave to sign judgment-Set off and counterclaim for breach of repair contract-Leave to defend-Repair of defendants' ship undertaken by plaintiffs-Bill of James Lamont & Co., Ltd. v. Hyland, Ltd. C.A. 478 exchange in plaintiffs' favour accepted by defendants in part payment-Claim on bill of exchange-Alleged breach of contract by plaintiffs entitling defendants to damages far in excess of claim on bill of exchange-Order of Master giving plaintiffs leave to sign judgment against defendants with stay of execution -Appeals against Master's order- Order of Lynskey, J., giving plaintiffs leave to sign immediate judgment against defendants without stay of execution-Appeal by defendants- Partial failure of consideration- Unconnected remedies-Discretion of learned Judge.

THE "GUERNSEY COAST."

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 483

Salvage-Standing by-Services rendered by lifeboat Prudential to motor vessel Guernsey Coast off North Foreland- Rudder of Guernsey Coast damaged after bumping and dragging on Margate Sand-Bad weather-S O S signal-Request for tugs-Guernsey Coast found by Prudential after search -Dispute as to position where Guernsey Coast found-Whether Guernsey Coast in any danger-Claim by coxswain and crew of Prudential, it being alleged that Guernsey Coast, by reason of expert advice proffered, was enabled to reach position of safety to await tugs-Written acknowledgment of services given by master of Guernsey Coast.

VINCENT v. T. WALLIS, LTD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 488

Stevedores-Negligence-Stacking of timber on barge-Proof of negligence -Onus-Personal injuries sustained by plaintiff lighterman while engaged in his duties on board board fully laden with timber-Timber loaded by defendant stevedores-Allegation by plaintiff that timber was negligently stowed, in that it tipped when he walked upon it-Evidence of stacking-Duty of stevedores towards lighterman.

MICHALINOS & CO., LTD. v. SCOURFIELD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 494

Master and servant-Contract of service- Ship's engineer - Retaining fee - Readiness to serve-Failure of consideration - Agreement by defendant engineer to serve in one of plaintiffs' ships-Retaining fee paid by plaintiffs until ship available-Alleged implied term that defendant would sign articles on ship becoming available- Refusal to sign articles when ship became available-Claim by plaintiffs for return of money paid as retaining fee on ground that consideration had wholly failed.

KIRIL MISCHEFF, LTD. v. CONSTANT, SMITH & CO.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 496

Arbitration-Award-Error of law on face -Motion to set aside-Power of Court to remit-Dispute under contract for sale of nuts-Clause in contract providing that Any dispute under this contract to be settled by arbitration in London. No claims entertained after goods taken from warehouse.

Claim by buyers on ground of defective quality-Plea by sellers that, by usage of trade, buyers' claim was out of time -Custom of trade-Arbitration- Award that

claim on quality was not made within a reasonable time from the final date of landing and thereby we conclude that the buyer has no case.

Defective reason-Whether Court empowered to remit award to arbitrators to permit them to remedy defect in reasoning-Discretion of Court- Arbitration Act, 1889, Sect. 10.

NOEMIJULIA STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LTD. v. MINISTER OF FOOD.

(1949) 83 Ll.L.Rep. 500

Charter-party-Readiness to load-"Full reach and burthen of the steamer" - Availability of stowage space-Reserve bunker space-Ship without mainmast or after derricks-Right of charterer to cancel-Plaintiffs' ship chartered by defendant to load grain at River Plate ports for U.K. under "Centrocon" Charter-party providing (inter alia): 6. . . . The charterer are to have the full reach and burthen of the steamer including 'tween and shelter decks, bridges, poop, etc. (provided same are not occupied by bunker coals and/or stores). 12. . . . should the steamer not be ready to load by 6 p.m. on 27th December, 1948, charterers shall have the option of cancelling this charter-party . . . 17. The cargo to be brought to and taken from alongside at charterers' risk and expense. 19. Owners undertake that the steamer shall not load more than 7350 tons, and not less than 6650 tons . . .

Arrival at Buenos Aires with inward cargo-Collapse of mainmast due to steps taken in extinguishing fire in store room-Temporary repairs effected (though jury mast not erected), ship being given certificate of seaworthiness for voyage homewards with grain- No. 3 hold ('tween and lower) occupied by bunker coal-Notice of readiness given by shipowners in accordance with charter-party-Refusal by charterer to accept notice on the grounds (inter alia) that the ship had no mainmast or after derricks, and that No. 3 hold ('tween and lower) still contained bunker coal-Cancellation of charter-party by charterer-Claim by shipowners for damages - Arbitration - Finding of umpire that No. 3 hold was designed as reserve bunker space, and Noemijulia Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Minister of Food. K.B. 501 that No. 3 'tween deck and No. 3 lower hold, if not used for reserve bunkers, were capable of carrying cargo; that in order to proceed to nearest bunkering port on homeward voyage sufficient reserve bunkers could have been carried in No. 3 'tween deck, leaving No' 3 lower hold free for grain; and that ship was not ready to load by her cancelling time in that the was without mainmast or after derricks and in that part of her No. 3 lower hold was not free for grain-Award that charterer was entitled to cancel-Case stated.

Lloyd's Law Reports